It goes without saying that some scientists will find what is an appropriate description of the final theory, whilst others may disagree, which will always be a problem. I remember speaking to a renowned physicist who explained that he did not accept this interpretation of the final theory http://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] 1) by McCutheon because he did not model an appropriate theory of consciousness. So as you can see, what may be [interpretated] as a viable theory of physics may differ somewhat due to the interpretation one wishes to adopt to model their theory on.

The structure of the mathematics may differ as well. Where we might find a single equation to explain the fundamental single force of quantum gravity, it may only consist of a few characters, and could be imprinted on t-shirts and caps all over the world; but a final theory of everything does not just need to unify the forces. It needs to explain why the fine structure constant is the way it is, why the fundamental constants of nature pervaided the way they did - including complete descriptions of all interactions within spacetime, both interaction of past, present and almost certainly future.

When concerning the forces of nature, we have managed to unify electric and magnetic forces and the electroweak (the unification of the weak nuclear force with that of electromagnetism). In 1963 American physicist Sheldon Glashow proposed that the weak nuclear force and electricity and magnetism could in fact be unified into three sides or facets of the same force, just acquired at a high energy. Then experimental support came to be in the discovery of ''weak neutral currents'' in 1973 and in 1983, the Z and W bosons were first produced at CERN. For their insights into the theory proposed, Salam, Glashow and Weinberg were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979. The four (known) fundamental forces of nature, the weak and strong nuclear force, electromagnetic force and gravity are expected to unify at temperatures consisting of around 10^14 GeV.

These approaches are what are consistered ''materialistic unified theory,'' which concentrate avidly on the physical interactions of particles and the initial state of the quantum universe when the laws of physics took on their roles. There are many physical theories contending to be the ultimate physical model of the universe which can explain the primal universe. Some of these consist of: SU(3)+SU(3)+SU(3), SU(5)+U(1), 331 model, E6 which arises itself from E8 Χ E8 heterotic string theory and this area of research was given some attention recently by (and needless to say a simpler form) by Garret Lisi was the E8 model http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2007/11/16/garrett-lisis-theory-of-everything/ [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] , which he called his ''Exceptionally simple theory of everything.''

If anything however, the unfication of even the physical interactions of the universe has become a difficult task since the days when Einstein secluded himself away from the general scientific community trying to unify his theory of quantum gravity - though he largly went about it the wrong way because he excluded from his work the strong force which had only just been discovered at the time. But even today with the knowledge we have, physics is proving a difficult task for any smart-minded physicist to unify sucessfully. Then there is the acceptance it will need to receive from the academic community.

What approach might consciousness take in a final theory of everything?

1) Note the author of that paper was not the scientist i consulted on The Final Theory, however, interestingly-enough this scientist also makes a similar point:

Therefore, rather than starting his Theory of Everything with a mysterious unexplainedforce called expansion Mr. McC would probably do better to start with a consideration ofthe nature and function of Aware Will and the various forms of consciousness that itcreates.

An internet search on the phrase "materialistic unified theory" doesn't give any hits.You say that "These approaches are what are consistered ''materialistic unified theory,'' ".By whom are they so considered?Are you just putting forward you own idea but pretending it's some established theory?

Not at all. The basis of the work above investigates two aspects which physics might cover. The materialistic side or convention to physics and the non-materialistic (side) of consciousness, depending on what theory you adopt. For instance, materialistic scientists use theories which require matter for the subject of consciousness, whilst some theorists model it not entirely dependant on the function of matter. Since the work above refers to unfified field theories, theories which involve no consciousness are purely materialistic.

Here are some demonstrations where materialism plays a part:

http://knol.google.com/k/spiros-kakos/human-consciousness-and-the-end-of/2jszrulazj6wq/58# [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/science/prat-mat.htm [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]

Hence, a materialistic unified approach. Materialistic science is a true definition of a particular line of science.

Einstein tried a unification theory; he failed because there is no way to get there while allowing space-time to be a variable. If you do not abandon causality and consider space-time as flat and not variable, it is easy to show how all the forces in the universe derive from the same thing. I'll write one up and post it in the new theories forum. []

Einstein tried a unification theory; he failed because there is no way to get there while allowing space-time to be a variable. If you do not abandon causality and consider space-time as flat and not variable, it is easy to show how all the forces in the universe derive from the same thing. I'll write one up and post it in the new theories forum. []

I think the concept of a Grand Unified Theory has nothing whatever to do with a description of conciousness. This could be even trying to conflate Physics with Metaphysics. I know that Roger Penrose believes that the human brain may use some form of quantum computing to provide the its level of complexity, but this is not a view that is widely held. Although much of the way the brain function is far from being fully understood, I suspect a majority of physicists would not say that any new physics is required to explain its attributes.

I am afraid that human beings rather like to think of themselves as superior to other animals in such a way as to make them distinct - it certainly reduces many ethical issues. But it is much more likely that there is a continuum of development states in the brains of all creatures from insects to homo-sapiens. The discrete differences resulting from evolution are unlikely (IMHO) to have occurred from any change in anything so fundamental as the adoption of new physical phenomena within the brain's basic operating mechanisms. It seems to me that it is just organisation and complexity that differentiates the brains of species. There also is no evidence to suggest that other species do not possess self awareness or conciousness too, at least to some degree.

So whilst I would accept that physical laws have to explain the functioning of the world, there is no intention in the world of physics to directly explain such high level functions. They are more to do with the enabling of the low level structures. It is not possible to understand all the behaviour of a transistor without some understanding of physics and, at a deeper level, quantum mechanics, but you do not need to understand any of this to see how a computer programme functions based on logic gates and memory. In this respect I think it perfectly fair to have a Grand Unified Theory that says nothing whatever about conciousness.

I think the concept of a Grand Unified Theory has nothing whatever to do with a description of conciousness. This could be even trying to conflate Physics with Metaphysics. I know that Roger Penrose believes that the human brain may use some form of quantum computing to provide the its level of complexity, but this is not a view that is widely held. Although much of the way the brain function is far from being fully understood, I suspect a majority of physicists would not say that any new physics is required to explain its attributes.

I am afraid that human beings rather like to think of themselves as superior to other animals in such a way as to make them distinct - it certainly reduces many ethical issues. But it is much more likely that there is a continuum of development states in the brains of all creatures from insects to homo-sapiens. The discrete differences resulting from evolution are unlikely (IMHO) to have occurred from any change in anything so fundamental as the adoption of new physical phenomena within the brain's basic operating mechanisms. It seems to me that it is just organisation and complexity that differentiates the brains of species. There also is no evidence to suggest that other species do not possess self awareness or conciousness too, at least to some degree.

So whilst I would accept that physical laws have to explain the functioning of the world, there is no intention in the world of physics to directly explain such high level functions. They are more to do with the enabling of the low level structures. It is not possible to understand all the behaviour of a transistor without some understanding of physics and, at a deeper level, quantum mechanics, but you do not need to understand any of this to see how a computer programme functions based on logic gates and memory. In this respect I think it perfectly fair to have a Grand Unified Theory that says nothing whatever about conciousness.

Bit of a cop-out though. Afterall, the idea of unification of not only the forces [but] everything, would almost certainly mean every other description which makes the whole. Einstein himself was even aware of our role,

A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.

So also in Linde's conclusions, it seems consciousness, whether or not it has direct and obvious relationships with spacetime, must itself require a model which physics can explain.